Towards a Knowledge Building Community: From Guided to Self-Organized Inquiry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over four academic years a design experiment was conducted involving four online university courses with the goal of shifting from Guided to Self-Organized Inquiry to foster Knowledge Building communities in the classroom. Quantitative analyses focused on notes contributed to collective knowledge spaces, as well as reading and building-on notes of others. All team members, including teachers, contributed at high levels. Students tended to produce more notes in the guided-inquiry approach but read more and demonstrated more even distribution of work as part of self-organized inquiry. Qualitative data focused on strategies students reported as new to their school experience. Strategies fell into three categories common to both guided and self-organizing inquiry: elaborating course content for depth of understanding, collaboration in an online environment, and metacognition, with greater reflection on idea development. Distinctive aspects of self-organized inquiry, according to student reports, included going beyond given information, linking new understandings and personal experiences, attention to the collective works of the community, and learning from instructor’s strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it